INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
HERTZ EUROPE SERVICE CENTRE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY BEAUCHAMPS, SOLICITORS)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Compensation and early retirement.
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment in 1999. In April, 2000 he suffered a serious debilitating illness. He returned to work in January, 2001 on a casual basis working 12 hours per week. The claimant's return to work was in conjunction with the Occupational Health Department and under the FAS Employment Support Scheme. This involved the assessment of the claimant by REHAB in conjunction with an assessment of the activities required for the job and achievable productivity levels. The claimant was accepted into the scheme as 50% productive. The worker claimed that he was unfairly treated by the Company on a number of work related issues and on the 13th May, 2003 referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 26th June, 2003.
3. 1. The Company sought 100% productivity from the claimant even though his medical capacity was assessed as being 50%. The worker did his utmost to achieve 100% targets however he found these efforts very debilitating. The Company indicated that if he did not achieve targets it might have to review the claimant's employment.
2. While approval was given to the claimant by the Company's Occupational Therapist to extend his work hours Management did not do so.
3. The Company failed to pay the worker his entitlement in respect of a Bank Holiday (March, 17th 2003).
4. The claimant raised the possibility of working in some other post in the employment, or of availing of early retirement or retirement on health grounds, to no avail.
5. The worker did not avail of the opportunity to meet Management, as outlined in the Company's letter of June, 2003, because he had already met with Management in February, 2003 when these issues were raised by him without success.
6. The worker seeks appropriate compensation because of the Company's refusal to extend his working hours. He wishes to avail of the early retirement scheme.
4. 1. The Company was not aware of the worker's concerns and he could, if he so wished, have raised any issues through the Company's Grievance Procedure. He did not do so. The Company rejects the claim that the worker's employment position would have to be reviewed if he did not achieve targets.
2. The Company acceded to the claimant's request in January, 2003 to work more hours. A probationary review period was agreed and started. However, the claimant did not complete this as he was on holidays from mid March together with 4 weeks' unpaid leave. Apart from a few days back at work in April he has been on certified sick leave since that time.
3. The Company invited the worker to a meeting in June, 2003 to discuss his position . The Company is anxious to engage with the worker and discuss all issues of concern to him including Bank Holiday entitlements, sick pay, hours of work/productivity, and his request in relation to early retirement. The Company will assist the worker in his application for early retirement.
The Court, having considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties, recommends as follows:-
1.Holiday Pay/ Bank Holiday Entitlements
The Company to respond to the issues raised by the claimant. If he is dissatisfied then he should make a claim through the Rights Commissioner Service.
The claimant to attend the Company medical doctor, as agreed at the hearing.
The claimant to formally apply for consideration for Early Retirement and the Company to process his claim, in the normal manner.
The Court is not in a position to recommend compensation based on the information supplied. The Court is not satisfied that there has been sufficient exploration of the options available to the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th July, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.